Beyond Housing Limited (202127743)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127743

Beyond Housing

17 May 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. The move to alternative accommodation to facilitate the associated repair works.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy which commenced on 28 June 2010. The property is a two bedroom bungalow. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for the resident, but records show that she had informed the landlord in various correspondences of issues with her medical health.

Scope of investigation

The resident informed this Service that her reports of damp and mould to the landlord date back to when her tenancy started, but the evidence provided only show reports going back to 2021. The evidence also shows that the resident did not make a formal complaint to the landlord about the matter until 2 August 2021. This investigation therefore focusses on events raised and addressed through the complaints process from January 2021, which is within eight months of the formal complaint being made.
This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider issues whilst they are still “live”, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reference to the adverse effect that the landlord’s handling of this matter has had on her physical and mental health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord Obligations

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord has a legal duty under the Homes (Fitness for human Habitation) Act 2018, to make sure that its rented houses and flats are ‘fit for human habitation’, which means that they are safe, healthy and free from things that could cause serious harm.
Its compensation policy allows for discretionary payments where it has determined service failure.
The landlord’s complaints policy in force at the time of the complaint notes that, it will acknowledge complaints within two working days and respond to:
1. Stage one complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage two complaints within 20 working days.
Although the landlord informed this Service that it does not have a repairs policy, information on its website states that:
1. It will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours where possible.
2. Complete appointed repairs – next available appointment.
3. Planned repairs such as plastering and damp proofing will be completed within 180 days.
The landlord is part of a letting’s partnership with other registered provider partners that use a choice-based lettings scheme in the allocation of social housing. It will advertise available properties to applicants who have an active application on the housing register. Applicants are able to express an interest by bidding for properties for which they have been assessed.
Prospective residents who already rent from one of the partners can apply to move and will have their eligibility and qualification assessed in the same way as new applicants. The policy encourages existing tenants to register for mutual exchange to facilitate a move. It is the responsibility of the applicant (or their advocate) to notify the landlord of any change of circumstance relating to or which may affect their housing application.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records noted that it spoke to the resident on 22 January 2021, regarding ongoing damp problems and that it arranged to visit on 25 January 2021. It further noted that it instructed its contractor to attend and inspect for damp and mould in the property.
The landlord’s repairs records state that its contractor attended the property on 11 February 2021 to conduct a damp inspection.
The inspection report provided to the landlord dated 1 March 2021, by its contractors, confirmed rising dampness in the walls due to the absence of an efficient damp proof course in the walls. They recommended the insertion of a damp proof course and the removal and renewal of wall plaster in order to control future dampness problems due to hygroscopic salts.
It noted that there was evidence of excessive moisture to the walls. The specification of remedial works noted that all furnishings and floor coverings and any other obstructions should be removed from the rooms specified for treatment. As well as the report and specifications of work, the landlord was also provided a quotation for the proposed works along with an acceptance of quotation form.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2021, and reported that the issue was getting worse. She asked if it had received any feedback since the contractor completed the survey, as they informed her that there was rising damp in every room. She said she was having an operation and would not be able to answer calls for a few days, but that she would appreciate a call back at some point.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 April 2021, about an unrelated matter and she also asked for an update on the damp survey. She told the landlord that every room in the property was affected, including the small bedroom which also had a roof leak. She said she would escalate the matter to this Service if nothing got done as she had been complaining about damp for nearly 11 years.
On 7 April 2021, the contractor asked the landlord to confirm receipt of its quotation report and sketch plan.
The landlord’s repairs log indicated that further concerns about the outstanding repair was raised by the resident on 9 July 2021.
On 2 August 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint. The key issues raised were:
1. She had complained many times at the start of her tenancy about damp in her property, but nothing was done about it.
2. A visit was conducted to her property where damp was found in every room and the contractor who visited advised the works that would be required.
3. She found a suitable match through mutual exchange to enable a move to a property near to her daughter’s due to her health needs.
4. She has provided a copy of an old letter from her GP, to help with rehousing, but she had asked them if another letter could be written.
5. The landlord inspected all the bungalows in her area including hers a few weeks back and concluded that the property did not suffer from rising damp contradicting the outcome of the previous inspection. Another company visited and reached the same conclusion that there was indeed damp in every room.
6. A community advisor of the landlord’s visited the same day and said the home swap should be put on hold. He advised that they would have to move her out of her home with her elderly cat for two weeks.
7. She expressed concerns about the damage that would be caused by the works as she had just redecorated the property and that the officer advised her that she would be issued vouchers. She was concerned that the vouchers would not cover the full cost of works that would be required.
8. Her home exchange partner would be willing to move out of her home into temporary accommodation for two weeks, but she would like to know who would pay for her storage. They said they may put off the exchange if the process took too long. She was concerned that she may lose the chance of moving near to her daughter.
9. The level of communication from the landlord had not been satisfactory.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 12 August 2021. It advised her that a member of staff would contact her to discuss her complaint and that a response would be sent to her within 10 working days.
On 18 August 2021, the landlord contacted its contractor regarding a start date for the works. The contractor responded that this was a big job and that it would involve organising the resident’s furniture around. They said it may take five to six weeks and they suggested a start date around from September 2021. The landlord also corresponded internally that it would raise an order for the works and that it would be ideal for the property to be vacant or for the tenant to be decanted including their possessions. It discussed if the resident could move out and the incoming resident could be placed in temporary accommodation until the works were completed. It also liaised with the contractors that the resident was doing a home swap and it asked for a firm date for the works to start so that the necessary arrangements could be made including temporary accommodation for the resident.
On 19 August 2021 the landlord communicated internally about a proposed start date of 4 October 2021 for the works.
The landlord spoke to the resident’s home swap partner on 20 August 2021 and explained the extent of works involved in the property. The landlord explained that it would be happy to facilitate their move into temporary accommodation until the works were completed, but it noted that they said they would consider this and respond after a few days.
On 24 August 2021 the landlord’s internal correspondence noted that it advised the resident to obtain quotes for redecoration and flooring which she agreed to arrange. It confirmed the date of works commencement as being early October 2021, and clearance of all items from the property which it would arrange together with decant accommodation. It noted that the resident was happy to delay the response.
The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 6 September 2021. It said:
1. It was sorry for the delays she had experienced with the completion of works required to resolve the damp conditions in her property.
2. It completed two damp surveys on her property in March 2021 and July 2021 and diagnosed rising damp and recommended a damp proof course.
3. It found that the delay was caused due to a misunderstanding and lack of communication between its internal departments.
4. It said this was being addressed to ensure this does not happen again in the future, and it apologised that this had delayed her repairs being completed.
5. It confirmed that works would commence on 4 October 2021 and that it would arrange for her belongings to be placed in storage and organise suitable temporary accommodation for her and her cat.
6. It spoke to her exchange partner who advised that she would like to postpone the mutual exchange at that time and that they may reconsider moving, after the works had been completed. It acknowledged that the resident would understandably be disappointed with this outcome.
7. It had discussed her request regarding compensation for redecoration with its insurance department and sent them copies of its damp survey reports. It said she should contact them by email to explain the incident and the subsequent damage caused, along with quotations for redecoration.
8. It concluded that any damage caused to her floor coverings, as a result of the works completed should be pursued as an insurance claim accordingly.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 20 September 2021. She informed it that she had been offered a property with another housing association. She asked if the landlord would assist with removal costs to aid the move and it agreed. The landlord liaised with the prospective landlord and enquired about the property address. It also informed them that it would obtain a quote for the resident’s removal.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 September 2021, and stated that she was in too much pain to move, so she had declined the offer of accommodation. It noted that it would ask the resident if she was interested in temporary accommodation to allow the works planned for 4 October 2021 to commence. It contacted the removal company it had previously made arrangements with and asked them to keep the removal and storage booked until further contact was received.
On 22 September 2021, the resident informed the landlord that her doctor had advised her to consider permanent accommodation rather than moving temporarily due to her health. The landlord advised the resident that it did not have any empty properties and that she would have to bid on the local authority’s website. The landlord offered to search for pet friendly accommodation with wi-fi as requested by the resident. It further noted that the resident named a few areas she did not wish to move to. The landlord therefore considered searching for holiday lets.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 24 September 2021, noted that it contacted the resident several times during the week to discuss moving her to temporary accommodation. It noted that:
1. The resident said she was very stressed about moving due to health complications and that it was not a suitable time.
2. It explained to her that it was trying its best to make the move as relaxed as possible for her and that it needed her to clarify the areas she wanted to move to temporarily as she had decided that certain areas were too far.
3. The resident later decided that she wanted the works postponed for health reasons, as she was unable to move and that she would rather find something permanent to move into.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord noted that it spoke to the resident about a property she had gone to view which she said was unsuitable (specific information about the property or the viewing were not provided to this Service). It noted from the conversation that she was more open to having the damp proof works done and any offer of temporary accommodation needed to be suitable in terms of location and facilities.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 October 2021, regarding a potential direct offer of accommodation. It determined that it was unsuitable as she had a pet. The resident advised that she was not interested in temporary accommodation and the landlord agreed that it would explore a permanent move. The resident provided the areas she would be willing to move to.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 November 2021, 8 November 2021 and also telephoned for an update on 31 January 2022.
The landlord’s internal records on 8 November 2021 noted that it did not have any suitable properties available for the resident and that she would not move to facilitate the works due to her health.
On 12 April 2022, the landlord’s records noted that it spoke to the resident who advised that she would like to consider commencing the damp works. This appears to be a phone call from the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 June 2022. She raised the following issues:
1. Two surveys were done in 2021 which showed rising damp in every room of her bungalow.
2. She is elderly and suffers from many health conditions which were being exacerbated by the damp.
3. Her doctor had written to the landlord and home choice about her condition, but the issue remained unresolved.
4. It was not possible for her to move out before 1 October 2021, due to the medical procedures she was due to have in the three months after this date.
5. The landlord should do more to assist with her move, but she is expected to use the bidding system which keeps refusing her bids. She is in silver band but supporting external organisations have informed her that she should be on gold banding.
6. She would like to be near to her daughter, as she may lose her driving licence in November 2021 due to health reasons.
7. She nearly got a mutual exchange in her desired location in 2021 but she received a letter stating that the mutual exchange was refused due to extensive damp.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 16 June 2021 and advised her that it would forward her email to the relevant teams to look into including the complaints team.
The landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint on 17 June 2022. She questioned why her housing priority was not higher given her medical condition. The landlord’s officer, following its discussion with the resident, highlighted her condition and the need for an urgent move on its records.
The landlord made a follow up call to the resident on 21 June 2022. It noted that the resident said she was not emotionally in a good place due to the family bereavements.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 22 June 2022. The key points from the response are noted below:
1. It had concluded its investigation in relation to her complaint and following its discussion with her on 17 June 2022. During their phone call she asked if a resolution to the complaint could be considered by means of a managed move, to a more suitable property, which would improve her current health and wellbeing.
2. She shared concerns that her 13-year-old cat would not be able to cope with the disruption and using a cattery for a short period would not be an option she would be happy to consider.
3. It asked during their conversation what her preferred resolution would be, and she advised that she would prefer to move closer to her daughter to receive support and care when needed.
4. It was sorry to hear that she may be losing her driving license due to further deterioration in her health and could see that the prospect of losing this independence would highlight the need to act upon the move to a suitable home now.
5. It checked her housing application to ascertain her position and found that she was placed in silver banding for health and wellbeing, which would be correct if her health would be improved greatly by securing a move. It had however amended this to gold banding as the supportive documentation on her application, coupled with the details she had shared during the telephone conversation, revealed that she had a debilitating condition with a serious and enduring condition which is significantly compromised by her environment, in line with the housing policy.
6. In addition, it amended her application to consider one bedroom properties as opposed to two, as she currently had a one bedroom need only within the allocations policy, but it noted that she would consider a two bedroom property if this were possible.
7. She was shortlisted fourth position following a bid she had placed for a one-bedroom bungalow.
8. It suggested that she may want to contact the local authority to make them aware of her interest in moving to their area, to increase her opportunities of securing a move to the area.
9. It had concerns that she may miss opportunities on the housing website and it placed an auto-bid on her application, so that the system would automatically place a bid for her on vacancies in the areas she had chosen and type of property.
10. It recommended that she should check the website weekly to ensure that any bids which had been placed by the system for her are properties that she would like to be considered for, as the housing policy will only allow three property refusals.
11. She should contact the relevant team if an auto-bid is not required, or if she would prefer not to be considered for a vacancy where a bid had been placed for her.
12. It asked if the provision of a dehumidifier would help with the moisture in the air caused by damp in her home, until a move could be secured for her.
13. Her housing application had been amended to reflect her areas of interest.
14. It did currently have homes in her chosen area of preference, and therefore would not be able to facilitate a managed move to that area. It was however able to guide and offer the necessary advice, as and when required, on how to progress this further.

Post complaints actions

The landlord informed this Service that the resident was rehoused on 12 January 2023.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair.
Put things right.
Learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of damp and mould.

In regard to the resident’s reports of dampness in her accommodation on 22 January 2021, the landlord responded accordingly in making arrangements for a contractor to assess the condition of the property. The evidence shows that the inspection was completed, on 11 February 2021, within a reasonable period of time which was under three weeks.
The landlord was provided a copy of the inspection report on 1 March 2021, confirming the presence of rising damp in the property, along with recommendations for the next course of action and treatment plan. The report informed the landlord that extensive works would be required and that all of the resident’s furnishings and floor coverings would have to be removed from the rooms specified for treatment.
Although the landlord acted appropriately in assessing the condition of the property, it has not evidenced that it provided feedback on its findings to the resident and its plan on getting this resolved. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord accepted the findings from the survey report and the recommendations offered by its contractor or if any feedback was communicated to the resident. The resident chased the landlord for an update in March 2021, April 2021 and July 2021 but it can only be concluded from the evidence seen, that it did not provide her any update. The lack of communication from the landlord over a period of five months is unreasonable.
The resident informed this Service that the landlord arranged a further inspection of the property in July 2021, which determined that there was no damp in the property thereby contradicting the findings of the previous report. In response to our request for evidence, the landlord said that it decided to request another inspection to reconfirm the original findings. The evidence shows that it did not however effectively communicate its reasons to the resident. The lack of adequate communication with the resident left her with no choice than to escalate the matter as a formal complaint on 2 August 2021. This is not appropriate, as the resident highlighted in her earlier contact in April 2021, that she had been complaining about damp for 11 years. This is indicates that the landlord was not taking the resident’s concerns seriously at this stage.
The evidence shows that the landlord actively started pursuing an action plan following receipt of the resident’s stage one complaint. It liaised with its contractor for a start date for the proposed works and the duration, and it agreed that the works would commence on 4 October 2021. It communicated internally and agreed that the resident had to be moved and it made plans to provide temporary accommodation for the resident’s mutual exchange partner pending the completion of the works. It also communicated the progress of the case to the resident on 24 August 2021. The landlord’s actions here were appropriate and in line with its obligations.
Although the landlord started the process for commencing the repairs, it left the resident in a state of uncertainty and worry for six months (March 2021 till August 2021). It would appear at this point that it had decided to accept the earlier findings and recommendations by its contractor, but it took several months during which it did not effectively communicate any delays to the resident. This meant that the resident was left in potentially unsuitable accommodation for many months.

Move to alternative accommodation to facilitate associated repair work.

Despite the recommendations by the contractor, informing it of rising damp in the property in March 2021, this Service has not seen evidence confirming that the landlord undertook a risk assessment to determine if her continued stay in the property posed any risks to her health and if she needed to be decanted temporarily or permanently, whilst it finalised talks or plans on the works needed. This is not appropriate given that the resident had expressed concerns about her health.
In its stage one response on 6 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged that it had unreasonably delayed the repairs to the resident’s property which had resulted in her exchange partner withdrawing from the mutual exchange application. It apologised and said this was due to poor communication within its internal departments and that it would address this to prevent a reoccurrence. It assured her that it would arrange temporary accommodation for her and storage for her belongings. Although the landlord apologised to the resident and acknowledged its failings, it would have been appropriate to offer her compensation for the inconvenience, frustration and time and trouble spent in pursuing the matter.
Following the complaint response, it is unclear from the evidence what efforts the landlord made in finding the resident alternative accommodation, or if it had any discussions with her regarding the areas she would be willing to move to and the types of property she would consider. This Service has also not been provided any evidence of its communication with the resident until 20 September 2021, when the resident informed it that she had been able to secure an offer of accommodation with another landlord. This suggests that the landlord had not been proactive in managing the case, in ensuring that all efforts were being made to move the resident from the property in order for the works planned for 4 October 2021 to commence. It would also appear that the landlord had not learned from its earlier mistakes as indicated in its stage one response. The resident later declined this offer on 21 September 2021 and said this was due to ill health.
The landlord appropriately kept in contact with the resident to accelerate her move from the property after she refused the offer of accommodation. The evidence shows that she however decided on 20 October 2021, that she wanted the works postponed for health reasons and that she would prefer to move into permanent accommodation. In this instance the landlord demonstrates that it made reasonable adjustments, in agreeing that it would find suitable permanent accommodation for the resident due to her health. It however said it was unable to offer her accommodation in her desired locations, as it did not have properties in the areas that she wished to move to.
Based on the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord appears not to have responded to the resident’s email sent to it on 7 November 2021, where she expressed concerns about her health and why she was not on a higher priority for housing. The resident also contacted it in January 2022 and April 2022 and asked for an update on the works but there is no record of its response to these enquiries. It also did not conduct a welfare check on the resident or provide an update on its search for alternative permanent accommodation as it had agreed. This is not appropriate and indicates that the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident and as a result of these delays and lack of action, the resident escalated the matter to this Service.
This Service has not seen records of any actions or contact with the resident between November 2021 and June 2022.This again shows that it was not proactive in managing the resident’s case, as her complaint triggered its contact with her in reviewing her case. Subsequent to its investigation of the resident’s stage two complaint, it determined that she should be in higher priority for rehousing, based on new evidence about her health and it made the necessary adjustments. It offered general advice about bidding, placed her on auto-bid, so she would not miss out on suitable properties and it offered to provide her a dehumidifier. Whilst the landlord’s response and actions were appropriate and reassuring at this later stage, it should have acted sooner and not waited until the resident escalated her complaint. These delays would have caused the elderly resident inconvenience, frustration, disappointment, time and trouble.
Overall, there is evidence of several failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in her property and in its handling of her move to alternative accommodation in order to facilitate the repairs. According to its website, it has committed to completing planned repairs within 6 months, so it should have raised works when it became aware of the recommended remedial works and put plans in motion to avoid any unnecessary delays or inconvenience to the resident. It delayed agreeing and setting out a plan following confirmation from the survey report that there was evidence of rising damp in the property. It did not communicate the outcome of the survey to the resident, leaving her to continually chase up for an update, which resulted in the matter being left unresolved for several months. It acknowledged its failings in its stage one response and apologised to the resident, but it failed to offer any compensation.
The landlord appeared to have learned from its mistakes in subsequently agreeing a date for the works to commence and in making arrangements to move the resident into temporary accommodation to allow access for the contractors. It agreed that she could move to permanent accommodation to facilitate the works when she refused temporary accommodation due to her health, but it failed to demonstrate that it proactively continued its search for suitable properties in the months leading to the time she raised her stage two complaint.
The evidence suggests that the landlord over relied on the resident to find suitable accommodation in order to gain vacant access to the property for the works to commence. It however addressed this, following the resident’s stage two complaint, by contacting her and reviewing her housing application to ensure that she was placed in the highest priority in light of her medical health and the condition of her property.
Given the failings identified in the investigation of the complaint, a financial remedy would have been appropriate in addition to its apology and its assurance to learn from the mistakes and put corrective actions in place.
Although the landlord’s compensation policy states that it pays discretionary payment where it has determined service failure, it failed to apply this approach in practice. This Service’s remedies guidance will therefore be used in determining a proportionate compensation amount to address this.

Determination (decision)

According to paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp in the property.
According to paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the move to alternative accommodation to facilitate the repair works.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in conducting a survey of the resident’s property to investigate damp in her property. It however delayed in following up the recommendations from the survey report for six months and it failed to feedback the outcome of the inspection and its plan for the remedial works with the resident.
Although it later acknowledged its failings in an attempt to put things right, through an apology, it did not acknowledge the detriment to the resident and offer compensation to address this.
The landlord failed to assess the need to arrange alternative accommodation for the resident and evidence that it communicated effectively with the resident following the findings by its contractor which confirmed rising damp in the property. It realised its error, several months after it received the damp inspection report about the condition of the property, and it apologised to the resident. It also took steps to put things right, by reviewing her housing application and awarding her higher priority, but it did not acknowledge the detriment that the delays had on her and offer redress.

Orders

The landlord should within four weeks of the date of this letter:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Pay the resident a total sum of £700 broken down as follows:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident by its delay in undertaking works identified to resolve the damp in the resident’s property.
2. £200 for the distress, time and trouble to the resident in its handling of the move to alternative accommodation to facilitate the repairs.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

In addition to the repairs information available on the landlord’s website, it should consider implementing a repairs policy, that would clearly define its obligations towards a resident in circumstances where planned repairs would be required in their accommodation.
The landlord should review their internal system to ensure that the resident’s vulnerabilities are accurately recorded, if she remains a resident of the landlord’s.